This is a Wikipedia user talk page. For the fictional wolf of the same name, see Carcharoth.

Archives

Index

July 2005 and September 2005: July 2005; September 2005 February 2006 to January 2007: February–March 2006; April–May 2006; June–July 2006; August–September 2006; October-November 2006; December 2006–January 2007 February 2007 to January 2008: February–March 2007; April–May 2007; June–July 2007; August–September 2007; October–November 2007; December 2007–January 2008 February 2008 to January 2009: February–March 2008; April–May 2008; June–July 2008; August–September 2008; October–November 2008; December 2008–January 2009 February 2009 to January 2010: February–March 2009; April–May 2009; June–July 2009; August–September 2009; October–November 2009; December 2009–January 2010 February 2010 to January 2011: February–March 2010; April–May 2010; June–July 2010; August–September 2010; October–November 2010; December 2010–January 2011 February 2011 to January 2012: February–March 2011; April–May 2011; June–July 2011; August–September 2011; October–November 2011; December 2011–January 2012 February 2012 to January 2013: February–March 2012; April–May 2012; June–July 2012; August–September 2012; October–November 2012; December 2012–January 2013 February 2013 to January 2014: February–March 2013; April–May 2013; June–July 2013; August–September 2013; October–November 2013; December 2013–January 2014 February 2014 to January 2015: February–March 2014; April–May 2014; June–July 2014; August–September 2014; October–November 2014; December 2014–January 2015 February 2015 to January 2016: February 2015–January 2016 February 2016 to January 2017: February 2016–July 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your efforts at tidying the article are much appreciated. However, can I request that further images are not added without some discussion? Additional images should only be used if they add something, e.g. the Butler House stones - an excellent addition. The O'Connell picture badly overcrowded the text and was of marginal relevance. There are probably dozens of images that could go into the article, but not at the expense of drowning the text; we need to be careful. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: Sorry, just seen your posts to the talkpage where you have raised issues relating to images, but my main point remains: we need to be careful what we add. Some of the images you've produced might be used instead, rather than in addition, to those presently in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are over-reacting to the addition of a single image. You disagreed and removed it - that is fine. As you say, the article talk page is the place to discuss it. I did just notice that it was you who pointed out at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions a problematic image - the images uploaded by that user are problematic and will need to go, but hopefully it will be possible to find suitable replacements. Carcharoth (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mail call! Scartol • Tok 00:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Offhand, this looks fairly simple. Most of the worst damage is in the sky. The healing brush will get the spots, the clone stamp (with fuzzy edge) can help with the right side. Of the small part of right side that has significant details, a low-exposure burn tool will help darken parts that have faded. Some cropping will be needed as there is aroundm - well, I'm not great at eyeballing pixel count, but probably around a 10-20 pixel strip on the right with no data; any small intrusions with no data can be reconstructed with clonestamp. To avoid deleting parts of the image, I'd be inclined to try and fill in the chunks after rotation, to avoid deleting parts. I'd try to get a higher resolution scan first, though. One exists. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Experimentally I have replaced the probably dodgy 1927 infobox image with an older (1830) picture. What do you think? This image includes your crop File:Nelson's Pillar plinth detail.jpg, though without the detail. I tried your crop in the text, but it shows rather pallidly and I'm not sure. Your crop of the new entrance, however, looks very well I think – again, your thoughts, please. Brianboulton (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those changes look good. Thanks for letting me know. Carcharoth (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also looked at the Paula Murphy source again. While I still believe there is little new information there, I agree with you that it would be good to cite a high-quality academic source. So I've changed a couple of the Fallon/Kennedy citations to Murphy. I've also added a brief quote from the book, concerning the aesthetics of Kirk's statue. I am still dithering about the article's ending – which poet to sign off with, primarily. We could replace Clarke with Richard Murphy, but I've not read Murphy's poem beyond the quotes in the interview, and I'm a bit worried that the "chiselled voice" might be seen as provocative, an Anglo-Irish sneer. Got to be rather careful, with the centenary in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood. All looks good. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have closed the peer review, prior to FAC nomination later this evening. I've had advice that the broken pillar iamage is probably OK, based on this; anyway, it's worth going to FAC with it and seeing how it fares there. I can't see anything else that needs attention. If you want to tweak anything, you've got a few hours to do it before I finalise the nomination.

After a FAC nom I always wait for about 48 hours before engaging with any review comments. I find the break essential if I am to consider comments objectively. You can of course proceed as you wish, but if you're unsure, keep in touch so that we are not responding at cross purposes. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious again, your pillar!

(true also for Brian who got many of these already and will watch, I guess) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Four years ago ...

thoughts
... you were recipient no. 122 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

I just remembered the centenary of the death of Max Reger, - more pictures on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Reger pictures are now stored under my images, preceding a very moving memorial concert which I learned about on my talk, of all places! It became a tombstone in music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Five years now, and still so valid what I heard you say then: "how letting personal animosity and dislikes get in the way of the bigger picture ... destroys trust". I nominated a Magnificat for FAC, in case of interest. The lead image is from the town where I live, and was just back to be seen after restoration of the church. The church is called Union Church (if you translate it) because a union was possible there of the Lutheran and Reformed Protestants, in 1817, a model for others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neer mind, I try to forget the Magnificat --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and seven, with thanks! I turned to a sad task: improving articles of some - too many - who recently died. On the Main page now: Georg Katzer and Wolfgang Meyer who recorded with Harnoncourt, more here. My tombstones ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and eight, and see regarding the above, WP:QAI/Recent deaths. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

You may not have seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irregular chess opening Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for referencing every entry - agree that refimprove's removal is justified. But sources were primary so i tagged it so. Felt it fair to let you know as you'd gone to so much effort on it!Rayman60 (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Award articles tend to be just lists, really. And the sources will mostly be primary. All the references are doing is confirming that the awards were presented to the people they were presented to, and the most authoritative source there is invariably the awarding institution. Not sure what to do here, as I don't think the tag is justified there. I would suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes, but that is not very active. I will dig around and see if I can find anything more. Failing that, what do you think is best to do here? Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed that sometimes primary sources can be the only way to get an all-encompassing list, however I would also have liked to have seen the list bolstered with independent sources. The lack of such suggests lack of notability so I would hope there are some out there. I added the tag based on a rather objective interpretation of the primary source concept without considering whether such specialised lists may wholly or largely rely upon them. Happy to go with whatever you think is most appropriate. Please do inform me of your thoughts and/or decisions so I know for future too. Rayman60 (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done some more with the article and removed the tag. I'd like to thank you for making me look at this some more, as there was some early history for this award that is interesting that I had missed. Was a bit stunned to find that one of the early awards was a sculpture that sold at auction recently for £50,000. The descendants of the person awarded that prize must be thanking their lucky stars he got that award and not one of the other ones instead! Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your efforts! It's looking much better now, with more info and a number of decent sources. I wonder if the sentimental value to the descendants of those early prizes exceeds its current monetary value?? Rayman60 (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea. I was going to mention (but forgot in my note above), that I did go and discuss this on another user's talk page. The discussion (so far) is here. I hope the tone of that discussion doesn't come across as too world-weary! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, if you're into awards lists, you might see if anything is wrong with this one I made aeons ago. Thanks and later...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. That looks a really nice list, on an obscure topic that deserves the attention you gave it. 2010 isn't aeons ago! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After posting this, I looked at it and noticed that I had completely forgotten that I had put it up for FL years ago. I didn't agree with a damn word the FL reviewers said; it sounded like baloney. When I compared other FL's to that list, the other FL's were skimpy-wimpy horseshit. But whatever. :-) Anyhow, I am not yet fully in the swing of things after a long vacation & major summer housecleaning/gardening etc., and may not be for a few more days, but later on if you ever need anything please do give me a holler. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello! Your submission of Philip Hepworth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 16 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Doiran Memorial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Doiran Memorial (pictured) is both a battlefield memorial and a memorial to the missing for the British Salonika Force that fought on the Macedonian Front during the First World War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Doiran Memorial. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 20 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Philip Hepworth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the British architect Philip Hepworth lived in and restored Zoffany House (pictured), formerly the home of the 18th-century painter Johan Zoffany? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Philip Hepworth. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Carcharoth, I've just got to the Welch Regiment War Memorial on my list (the links are gradually turning blue!) and was thinking about our earlier conversation about the eight(?) Lutyens cenotaphs. We thought that Norwich's wasn't one of the eight, but several of the NHLE entries list it as one—the entry for Rochdale Cenotaph, for example, says "This [Rochdale] is one of eight cenotaphs in England designed by Lutyens. The earliest to be erected was at Southampton in 1920; the latest at Norwich, in 1927". So we have:

1. Southampton
2. Reading
3. Maidstone
4. Derby
5. Rochdale
6. Whitehall
7. Richmond

Plus Norwich and Cardiff. I think probably the best way to handle it is to follow HE on describing Norwich as one of the eight in England, and treat the Welch Regiment's as a ninth. What do you think? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be best to try and locate all the entries where English Heritage state this fact (and also the one about the number of regimental memorials), and check they are being consistent. The entry I pointed you to earlier for the Whitehall Cenotaph only refers to 'Other variants on the design', omitting Norwich. It is possible the sources slightly contradict themselves, or are unclear. Maybe also see what other sources say as well.

One point about the Welch Regiment War Memorial which I raised in the earlier conversation is about who unveiled it. I found a source which said it was "unveiled on 11 November 1924 by Major-General Sir Thomas Marden". That source is a history of the Welch Regiment here (from 1952). The original unveiler had been intended to be R. H. K. Butler. There is an asterisk next to the name of Marden on page 13 of that history of the Welch Regiment, so maybe try and get hold of a copy of that source? On the other hand, that history of the Welch Regiment does have a mention of Plumer on page 12, saying he unveiled a memorial to the Regiment in Llandaff Cathedral on 19 July 1924, dedicated by the Lord Bishop of Llandaff (probably Pritchard Hughes) - the Welch Regimental memorial had been dedicated by Ernest Thorold. That history of the regiment is quite clear in distinguishing between the two memorials and ceremonies: on page 12: "There are three regimental memorials to The Fallen of the First World War. Two were unveiled in the year 1924. Firstly, the Regimental Memorial erected to the Memory of All Ranks of All Battalions of The Regiment in Llandaff Cathedral." (The unveiling of this by Lord Plumer is mentioned here). Then on page 13, the Lutyens cenotaph and its unveiling by Marden on 11 November 1924. You source the unveiling by Plumer to Skelton p.167, presumably Lutyens and the Great War? I had a look at my copy of that, and that is what Skelton and Gliddon say. I think they have erred here. Maybe someone should write to them at the Lutyens Trust about that? I checked the reports at the time from The Times and there is a report from 1924 about the Llandaff memorial unveiling (The Welch Regiment. War Memorial Unveiled. The Times (London, England), Monday, Jul 21, 1924; pg. 9; Issue 43709). Apparently Marden was at that unveiling as well. I can't find any report in The Times for the unveiling of the Lutyens cenotaph in Cardiff on 11 November 1924. I can only think Skelton and Gliddon (or their researchers) confused the two memorials. Maybe local newspapers in Cardiff might have a contemporary report on each unveiling? Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:, and I'll raise this on the article talk page as well and maybe edit the article to include this source. 10:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Have now edited the article to reflect the above. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya Carcharoth, sorry for the late reply—I went to see my grandmother in Coventry for a few days. While I was there I managed to nip down to Rugby and Northampton and across to Leicester to see the Lutyens memorials there and take photos (which I'll upload to Commons in due course). Thanks for your edits to the Welch Regiment memorial. I had a look for a copy of that book, but it seems to be very rare and the only copies on the Internet are going for £100. Anyway, you're probably right about Skelton confusing the various memorials. I'm a member of the Lutyens Trust, so I might drop them an email.

As for the various cenotaphs, I'm now even more confused. The entry for the one in Maidstone says "This is one of eight cenotaphs in England designed by Lutyens [...] The earliest of Lutyens's cenotaphs to be erected was at Southampton, in 1920; the latest was that at Norwich, in 1927". Several other listings use the same phrase but not all do (including Southampton and Whitehall), and that implies there are eight in total, not eight plus Whitehall. But I count nine in England (ten in the UK), with Whitehall: Derby, Manchester, Maidstone, Reading, Rochdale, Southampton, Whitehall, Richmond, Norwich, and Cardiff (note that all ten listings refer make much of the objects being cenotaphs and being designed by Lutyens.). I might email Historic England about that—they've been responsive in the past when I've emailed them with minor errors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, it feels like I'm finally making some headway on my little project to document all of Lutyens' war memorials: I count 43 free-standing memorials in the UK (+1 in Ireland), of which all but nine now have articles. The last nine are all war crosses which are all ... exactly the same but completely different! I think I'll send that email to Historic England tomorrow. It's a bank holiday so it'll probably take them a few days to respond but it might be the first thing in their inbox on Tuesday morning. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: thanks for the update, and congrats on being nearly there with the Lutyens memorials! Sorry I didn't reply to your earlier message. I have got a bit carried away with a listing of all the MPs, peers and their sons that died in WWI and WWII. See here. It has been interesting seeing the various states of all those articles. The main listings (only considering those with Wikipedia articles here) of 46 entries for WWI and 56 entries for WWII should have been enough, but I then decided to see what could be done with the listings of the sons (and for WWII, brothers and daughters) on the memorials in both Houses for both World Wars. Turns out that the number is around 400... It is remarkable how many scions of the aristocracy fell in the wars (this is not anything new, people have written quite a bit about this) and the many stories associated with that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Down to eight now, but alas back to work tonight after a week off and a long weekend. I'll do what I can in the week though. I'd love to see blue links for all 43. Next challenge will be visiting the ones I haven't been to yet, but that could get expensive! I'll have to start thinking about a structure for a general article to link the 43 articles together. It's amazing, and tragic, to see the impact the wars had on society, and you're right that it's equally fascinating that not even the aristocracy came out of it unscathed. Part of my inspiration for this project was the realisation that the wars touched everyone—there's a war memorial in just about every town and village in Britain and in some small villages you can count more names on the war memorial than houses in the village. Speaking of the aristocracy (not, I hasten to clarify, that I'm landed gentry!), the fate of public schoolboys in the world wars is one that interests me. My old school has its own war memorial and my old history teacher has just written a book about the school's ex-pupils and staff in WWI. Gerald Gliddon (Tim Skelton's co-author on Lutyens and the Great War) wrote a book about public schools in WWI but I haven't been able to find a copy at a sensible price and it's not top of m list for the minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: school memorials are another angle, yes. On my perambulations yesterday, I came across the webpages set up by Winchester College, see an example here (from WWII). Same story with the public schools - the people who were meant to become the next generation of leaders of the civil service, of industry and so on, were given commissions as junior officers and many were killed. Though the numbers of ordinary soldiers killed far outweighed other classes of soldiers in terms of numbers, the mortality rate was, I recall from reading about this some time ago, greatest among the junior officers who were expected to lead the charge over the top. With the aristocracy, it depended on the family. Many had a strong tradition of military service, and were more than willing to serve (and die). It was expected of them, and many were already in the military or in some cases raised and led new battalions from people on their estates. The actual lord/duke/earl might be too old to fight, but would be in uniform and would send his sons to fight. The most powerful and influential families might be able to arrange things a certain way (a safe posting at GCHQ or somewhere else behind the lines), but minor nobles and impoverished aristocrats (there were many of these) would not be able to do this. If the eldest son was killed, and the sons after him, and there were not enough 'spares' (as the younger sons of nobles were often called), then the title would (when the bereaved father later died) go to a sometimes distant relative or go extinct altogether. There was also a tradition in some families that the younger sons would enter the military. You get quite a lot of 4th/5th/6th sons, born to an older father who died before the war, in which case the eldest son became the new lord, and these younger sons (in their 30s and 40s by the time the war starts) are called up and also decimated to some extent. But it does vary a lot and from family to family. Some very sad individual cases, though this is not surprising when dealing with the sheer numbers involved. Nearly every permutation that was possible actually happened. And with that, I need to go to work as well! Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A request for comment is available on protecting user pages by default from edits by anonymous and new users. I am notifying you because you commented on this proposal when it was either in idea or draft form. Funcrunch (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The 'cricket' thread has not been handled well by an editor or the clerks (and thanks very much for pointing out that he is a clerk - I missed that entirely), but I have added the evidence to my statement, without the PAs the IP thought fit to include. It's an illuminating example and should be examined without the questionable to-and-fro of deletion. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Dragged over from Iridescent's talk page. I think cadency may explain most of the variations you're seeing. After the death of his elder brother John in 1902, William Walrond was the eldest living son and heir apparent, so he differenced his father's arms with a label. If you look carefully at the shield for Neil Primrose, you'll see a crescent at the central point, superimposed over the design, showing that he was Rosebery's second son. Francis McLaren was Aberconway's son, and also has a crescent for difference, in this case at the top of the shield. Choess (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks, Choess. I knew I'd have to say whether they were first, second or third sons at some point, and that is the perfect excuse and explains everything. Well, except the colour variants. Would you be able to help with the following (or suggest where to ask)?

• I presume there are no actual differences between 1 and 2?
• Why is 3 only part of the O'Neill shield?
• Why are the flags white for the McLaren shield compared to 4?
• Colours differ slightly for 5 (blue tongues and claws) and Primrose heraldic shield (red tongues and claws and red in the flowery bits.
• Black lions in the Thynne heraldic shield and red lions in 6.

Regarding the cadency, Clive was the eldest son but his father had predeceased him, so no cadence there as I presume the arms passed to him from his father. Walrond was the eldest surviving son, as you say, so the label of three points used (picking a suitable colour, I presume - apparently brisures are exempt from the rule of tincture). Baring was the fourth son, though his father predeceased him and his elder brother was the 5th Baron - the heraldic shield has both a crescent added (probably inherited from a second son inheriting the title at some point) and a martlet (as the fourth son). For Campbell, presumably he was the eldest or only son and his father predeceased him. Crichton-Stuart was a second son, and gets the crescent. Gladstone was an only son, but is given a martlet which I think is not a cadence given to him (WGCG) but a cadence that was inherited from the grandfather (the famous prime minster) who was a fourth son of the 1st Baronet Gladstone. Thynne was a third son, but the second son had died so he took the cadence of a second son. I'm going to stop there (you covered Primrose and McLaren). I see why they often don't bother with cadences... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Baring arms: yes, those are just two different artistic interpretations of the same blazon.
• Arthur O'Neill: The other quartering, chequy or and gules a chief vair, is the coat of Chichester. O'Neill's grandfather, William O'Neill, 1st Baron O'Neill, was paternally a Chichester but changed his name on inheriting the O'Neill estates. William's great-grandmother Mary was heraldic heiress to her father Henry O'Neill of Shane's Castle (d. 1723) and had already brought the O'Neill quartering into the Chichester family arms.
• Francis McLaren: Debrett's 1985 says "castle triple towered and with flags flying sable". Burke's 1911 says "a triple towered castle sable, masoned argent, flags, windows, and porticullis of the second." So also Burke's 1902. Lodge's Peerage(?) 1907: "a castle triple-turreted sable". If the last represents the original arms, the artist would have some liberty in how to depict the castle, and the other blazons may simply be describing one particular artists' choice.
• Neil Primrose: The blazon in Balfour Paul, "An Ordinary of Arms", says that 2nd & 3rd quarters matriculated by Rosebery in 1823 were Argent a lion rampant double-queued sable, while the 1st & 4th quarters were vert, three primroses within a double tressure flory counter-flory or. Since no color is specified for the lion's tongue, claws, etc., the differences are purely from the artist's interpretation.
• Lord Alexander Thynne: Debrett's of 1878 gives the coat for the 4th Marquess as bearing the lion rampant, tail nowed and erected, gules. So also Fox-Davies Armorial Families 1895. Debrett's 1931 gives the same for 5th Marquess. The black color in the shield must be an artist's error.
• Guy Baring: The crescent is probably there because Lord Northbrook is the senior representative of the descendents of Sir Francis Baring, 1st Baronet, while Lord Ashburton is descended from his second son. However, looking at contemporary peerages and armories, the two families don't seem to have differenced their coats of arms, although the peers themselves had different crests and supporters. So the crescent under the martlet may be a hypercorrection by the heraldic artist. Cracroft's Peerage claims that Ashburton now uses a cross formé fitchée azure as a mark of difference but I can't find any other corroboration at the moment.
• Duncan Frederick Campbell: his father was Archibald Frederick, a barrister in Toronto, and his grandfather was Duncan Campbell. I suspect he was not actually armigerous and that the artist slapped up the undifferenced arms of Campbell on the memorial.
• William Glynne Charles Gladstone: like the Ashburtons, the contemporary Gladstones don't seem to have bothered with marks of cadency, so the added martlet may actually be another hypercorrection by the artist.

Hope this helps, Choess (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is very helpful, thanks. I wonder if I should ask what 'armigerous' means? :-) (OK, the link answered that.) Several of those commemorated by heraldic shields were not sons of peers, but some did have that in their ancestry somewhere (e.g. Gladstone). I don't think Bennett-Goldney (Francis Bennett-Goldney) had any aristocratic ancestry, but he was mayor of Canterbury. The Cawley brothers is an interesting case ([1]; [2]). Harold Cawley and Oswald Cawley. I can't remember what order they were born in and what order they died in, but Harold died before his father was ennobled (hence was never styled 'The Honorable'), but was commemorated with a heraldic shield, maybe the arms were those of his father's baronetcy, rather than the Barony? No idea what they based the arms for Valentine Fleming on: [3]. Ditto Philip Glazebrook ([4]). Unlike the others I failed to find arms for, Charles Thomas Mills was the son of a peer ([5]), but for some reason the arms of the Hillingdon Barons don't seem to be on Commons (I suppose no-one has got round to it yet). The final one (Willie Redmond) is interesting as well ([6]), as "He came from a Catholic gentry family of Norman descent long associated with County Wexford" - I am sure the College of Arms had fun with that. If you really want to go to town on this, the three MPs without heraldic shields were Charles Henry Lyell (a son of a baron), Tom Kettle (no relevant ancestry I can find), and John Joseph Esmonde (the family was part of the Baronetage of Ireland). Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I've been meaning to answer this for a while. Peers (the nobility) are a subset of the gentry, which more or less corresponds to people entitled to bear arms (well, Round would disagree with Fox-Davies on that, but never mind). You can be an armiger without any family connection to a peer, or anyone with a hereditary title for that matter. Being a peer just means you get some extra knickknacks dispersed around the shield (supporters and a coronet).

If you look here, there's the blazon of the Fleming arms (without the label for cadency); Robin (not Robert) is Valentine's nephew and was High Sheriff of Oxfordshire in 1980. My guess is that the arms were granted to Robert (d. 1933) at some point on the way up the ladder. Lyell should have been an armiger: the Lyell of Kinnordy coat is described here, "or, a cross azure between four crosses patteé gules within a bordure engrailed of the last", and Charles, the geologist and baronet, bore a differenced version of the same. The Esmonde arms are "ermine, on a chief gules, three mullets or", so John Joseph should have been able to bear those, doubly differenced for cadency. I suspect Kettle was not armigerous but can't be sure. I have no idea why the other two would not have gotten shields, especially in light of Campbell, who was probably not an armiger. Incidentally, there's a somewhat confused explanation of the Redmond arms at Loftus Hall; they seem to arise from a garbled recollection of a Royalist attack on the (then) Redmond Hall, transformed by tradition into a Cromwellian siege. (The attack was conducted by a deputy of Esmonde's ancestor.) Choess (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for this. All fascinating. As I've said elsewhere on similar topics, may come back to this after thinking about it for a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Carcharoth. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this you? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most people I know don't accent everything so much, but that is one way to pronounce my username, yes. The important thing is that the 'c' is hard: Kar-khar-roth. Probably meant to be an emphasis on one or other of the syllables, but I forget which. The article: Carcharoth might tell you more (it gives an IPA pronunciation). Way back when, I should have chosen a more sensible name, something like Anfauglir... Carcharoth (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, got it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I too think that the Quote template should have a date param. I've added one to the sandbox version. Please have a look at it. If it's OK, we can put it in the main template code. -- Ebelular (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for doing this. I am not very good with that sort of technical stuff. Can you try asking someone else? Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's OK. You can still provide valuable feedback about the look of the 'date'. Does this example look OK to you? -- Ebelular (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Carcharoth,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether First Lebanon War should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Lebanon War .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Abbottonian (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal – SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Carcharoth.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Carcharoth. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there! I see you have been trying to reduce duplication on the editathon page. I don't think this is necessary at this stage as I was trying to compile a list of new articles during the editathon. When I've completed it, there might be a case for handling duplicates but I think it is important at this stage to compile a full list.--Ipigott (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am trying to compile a full list as well. What is the difference between 'New or upgraded articles' and 'During the BBC editathon'? I am moving the articles (created on 8 December during the editathon) that I added to the former section, to the new section that you created. I am not removing any entries, just ensuring there is no duplication. Carcharoth (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your involvement and it is indeed great to have more than one person helping out. Would it be possible for you to give me about an hour to add all the new women's biographies created on 8 December to the new list? I am going through the [AlexBot] lists and am about half way through. I had been adding them in the reverse order of creation (i.e. most recent at the top). Once the full list has been completed, we can mark duplicates if you think that is important. In fact it's not as important as you might think as duplicates are eliminated automatically in the WiR metrics.--Ipigott (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I hadn't realised you were only part way through. I thought you had left quite a few out. As you are planning to finish the list, I am very happy to leave you to do that (alphabetical order for articles created on that single day might be better ultimately). I don't understand what you mean about WiR metrics. Do you mean the stats generated from the WikiProject tags? That is different to manually created lists like this. Manually created lists shouldn't have duplicates either as that can confuse people. Some articles were also moved from drafts, and some articles were created before and after 8 December. Also, not all will have been tagged with Womeninred. Are you aware of the hashtag used in edit summaries and the search that find around 138 articles? See here (and remove the en filter if you want to see the articles created in other languages). Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, Margaret Read (musician), doesn't appear on the AlexBot list. I also found one that was speedily deleted, see Wanjiru Kihusa. Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you would prefer, I will move everything to draft until the list has been completed. It will take me too long to explain everything here but I can assure you everything is very logical. Let me just say that the upper list has been created by people who have expressly contributed to the WiR editathon while the 8 December list is intended to identify all the articles created during the BBC editathon whether or not they were aware of WiR. Most weren't. The WiR metrics are here. All the name should also be included alphabetically for December.--Ipigott (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should keep using that space. It would be better for me to build my list elsewhere. I would like to include rejected drafts, articles that are still in draft form (one I am still trying to find), speedily deleted articles, and also the nominations made here that may not have been acted on yet but some were and were not explicitly linked from the BBC Live Reporting page (e.g. Mary Tape, Andrea Stark). Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional articles possibly not mentioned elsewhere: Siyanda Mohutsiwa, a declined AfC draft: Draft:Monica Dinosaurescu, nomination not created Sirin Hamsho (nominated here), Kathryn McDowell (nomination), Sheema Kirmani (draft). Lucy Ann-Holmes was nominated by Helen Pankhurst in relation to No More Page 3, but no edits made on 8 December to the 'No More Page 3' article, and instead an article was created on Helen Pankhurst herself (from here). Imani Lansiquot or Imani-Lara Lansiquot was nominated but not created. Instagram has a nomination from BBC journalist Emily Maitlis here - no name mentioned, but presumably refers to Rose Cannan, wife of Denis Cannan and whose story is told here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for these additional names. There may be quite a few more. AlexBot is not comprehensive. I apologize for being brief but I wanted to get the list finished to avoid more edit conflicts, etc. I started off rather slowly yesterday as I was editing each of the articles as I went along and adding the names to Wikidata.

You'll be pleased to hear that I've now completed the list on the basis of AlexBot. I think it is an excellent idea of yours to highlight articles requiring attention. In fact nearly all of them need work on categories, de-orphaning, defaultsort, authority control, and of course general copy editing. Generally speaking we have been very lucky more have not been deleted but I expect the page reviewers are catching up. As we are working on a WikiProject page, I don't think duplication is an issue. The lists here are simply to demonstrate the number of articles created through the editathon and provide a basis for further work. Please now feel free to continue work on the list, adding any missing names and, if you wish, specifying what urgent work is required. I very much appreciate your assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Thanks for coming here to co-ordinate. Another category is articles created in other languages that were already on en-Wikipedia: Shandra Woworuntu. The strange thing there is that it was created in Indonesian, but the cross-wiki links were not updated. I'll do that now. Carcharoth (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There were quite a few in other languages, no doubt as a result of the BBC's 90 second video on how to edit Wikipedia. There was one poor soul who wrote six articles and a user page in Zulu before everything was deleted. It occurred to me that if you have constructive suggestions for the improvement of our work, you might like to communicate on the Women in Red talk page. I think you'll find some of the recent segments interesting.--Ipigott (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was shocked that (allegedly) someone (a male editor, as if that needed highlighting or made a difference) was blocked for 6 months for objecting to the notability of the articles being created on the Turkish Wikipedia. The reporting may have left out other details as to why the editor was really blocked, but then that would be really poor journalism. Carcharoth (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your great efforts to help with checking the women articles done during the editathon. Doing a terrific job! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am in the middle of a monster DIY project (essentially I had an extension built and I am doing all the fit-out myself, including moving most of the rest of the walls in the house), so I've not really had time to look into the BBC thing. Is there anything specifically you'd flag as interesting? Anything we could do better? Guy (Help!) 20:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a)) to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you, Carcharoth, for you interesting comments on the AfD for List of female Egyptologists and for your follow-up work on Wikidata. I see that once you got the hang of it you were able to proceed very quickly. Are you aware that thousands of articles about women are being created automatically every week on the Welsh wiki? See details here. It looks to me as if it is time to have a serious review of Wikimedia policy, Wikidata development, and potential problems in this connection. As you must know, while Wikidata contains a great deal of useful information, most of it is unreferenced and relies mainly on the articles in the various Wikimedia languages. If it is to be used as a source for creating articles, even lists, far more attention will need to be given to quality control. For quite some time, I have been suggesting that Wikidata could be used as a source for creating new biographies on the English Wikipedia but I still think that until quality is improved, it should only be used as a source for further development by human editors. Perhaps you could advise on where this discussion could best be continued.--Ipigott (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the follow up here. I have misgivings about the Welsh increase. That is an artefact arising from the fact that the Welsh Wikipedia have so few articles. It is easy to make a difference there, less easy on en-Wikipedia. And if the Welsh Wikipedia translated all the en-Wikipedia articles they are missing into Welsh, the balance in the numbers would (unsurprisingly) be the same as we have here. About Wikidata, I agree that a discussion is needed, but it is really hard to work out where. And also to find people who are single-minded enough and have enough time to work on gathering community consensus over things like this. There are other things I need to do, and I promised myself I wouldn't get distracted! Maybe start with people like Nikkimaria, Risker, Johnpacklambert, Ealdgyth, and discuss at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2? There has been some recent activity on that page. There are some strong opinions around. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC) PS. I forgot to mention Fram, see here. For the record, I do support a lot of what Wikidata does. What I don't support is the push to try and make Wikipedia overly dependant on Wikidata. There needs to be proper reversibility and accountability baked into the system. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Reply[reply]

PS. To Ipigott and anyone else reading. I am moderately familiar with Wikidata already. Have a look at my contributions over there. There is endless amounts that could be done over there. But it is not clear what is best done by people and what is best left to bots. Sometimes it feels like the same information is being entered twice, once on en-Wikipedia and once on Wikidata. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks first of all for all the additional work you have been doing on Wikidata to expand and improve the list. Over the past few months, I have been doing an increasing amount of work on Wikidata too although I found it was very difficult to start with. It became much easier after I installed the gadget described here which allows you to add information to Wikidata without leaving the Wikipedia article you are working on. Compared to Wikipedia, Wikidata is a relatively new development and still requires considerable work but it seems to be coming on very well and can increasingly be used as a useful source of information in connection with the creation of new articles. But as you say, it contains many errors, some created by poor programming of the bots, others simply copied from incorrect details on Wikipedia. I finally decided to vote "Keep" on the list as I think deletion at this stage could have unexpected repercussions. Perhaps there is a more sensible way of dealing with the use of Wikidata lists on the mainspace, for example by including a meaningful introduction or lead and inviting comments on omissions or required correction on the talk page. I also note that Victuallers is interested in discussing the issue further once we have decided on the most appropriate place to do so.--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect that we need not discuss how wikidata is used on en:wiki but how en:wiki is used by wikidata! I suspect a new interface will develop - maybe like the reasonator. Victuallers (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. I am going to move on from this now. I will check back, but need to work on some other areas now. Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have been working on this further and calling for a Listeria update. As Nikkimaria and others are attempting to work on manual improvements to this and similar lists, I have suggested on Joe Roe's talk page that the Wikidata lists on women should be moved to Women in Red where they could continue to be updated from Wikidata but that the lists on the mainspace should be manually edited until consensus is achieved. Until now, Listeria has only provided updates about once every three weeks.--Ipigott (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I continue to get distracted. :-) I am going to do something else for a bit, but will try and keep up with developments over the next few days. Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hey Carcharoth, do you have access to a scanner or something similar? I'd love to upload the drawing from page 61 of Lutyens and the Great War to use in the York City article but I don't have access to any digitisation equipment. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Install the Google Drive app on a phone or tablet (the full standalone app, not just navigating to the Google website); open it up and select "new" (the big blue button with a + sign); select "scan" (the little camera) and bob's your uncle - phone cameras are so over-engineered these days, they have nearly the resolution of professional flatbed scanners. It works best if you set the book on the floor (to ensure it's completely flat) and against a dark background (so the software can spot the edges). ‑ Iridescent 23:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image credits at the back of the book say that image (of the initial proposal in 1920 by Lutyens) was provided by York City Council. By all means do what Iridescent suggests, but I'm wary about scanning from actual published books from after 1923, even if the image itself is almost certainly public domain. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iridescent: Wow, that works! I'm impressed! But now I have it in my Google Drive as a PDF; how can I get that into a JPEG or something useful?

Carcharoth, if Lutyens held the copyright then it's comfortably in the public domain; if the council did it's more complicated but almost certainly PD in the United States (so could be uploaded locally to enwiki) and very likely so in the UK (which would mean it could be uploaded to Commons). I understand your reservations but I can't imagine anyone claiming to own the copyright by virtue of printing it into a book. The National Portrait Gallery went to considerable effort to create photos of their paintings, for example, and even they ended up arguing the issue to a stalemate in the end. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To convert between file types, go to www.zamzar.com, a free service which converts between (virtually) any file types. PDF to PNG is probably the best choice if you plan to use something on Wikipedia, although JPEG, TIFF etc will obviously also all work. ‑ Iridescent 10:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The design was certainly displayed to the public in 1920, true. I use an online pdf to jpeg converter for the odd one or two conversions (when I can't get single images out of a PD online pdf publication), though if doing a lot you might want an actual piece of software on your device (though I use an online image editor now as well - you can do anything in the cloud these days, though it should be a place that looks 'right'). Not sure why it ended up as a pdf in the first place. Maybe you can adjust that in some settings somewhere. No idea about who retained the copyright, but suggest you mention York City Council in the upload so anyone who wants to can check. Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've asked at c:COM:VPC for some advice on that. In the US, copyright on works for hire expires 95 after publication, but I have no idea if the rule is the same for the UK and can't find anything useful. Ah well, I'm not in a rush. It would be nice to have, but it's not a dealbreaker. By the way, could you have another look at Spalding's FAC when you get a moment? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hiya Carcharoth, I was wondering if I could trouble you to explicitly support at the Spalding FAC or if you have some lingering doubts? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you are interested, but I'm inviting reviews for the article on the Kingdom of Singapura - Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Singapura/archive1. The reason is mainly because I believe it needs to be overhauled, but it may not be easy because of the extensive amount that's written already, therefore I would like suggestions (or even edits) that can improve it. The main problem is the uncertainty in the history and what appears to be skewing of the narrative (some points raised in Talk:Kingdom of Singapura), and historians believe that the many of the kings could be mythical. None on the list of reviewers seems to be interested in this particular area, but I'm hoping the subject might just be within the ambit of something "obscure" to interest you. Hzh (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi I am new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if this is not the correct place to ask for help. I recently created an article for David Benac, but it needs reviewing. Any help would certainly be appreciated. It is wonderful that you offer your time. Thanks Nicool9 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Nicool9Reply[reply]

Hi. I saw your name in peer review volunteer list. Can you please review the Murshid Quli Khan article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Murshid Quli Khan/archive2. RRD (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

Hey Carcharoth, long time no see. Hope you're well. I have an article that might be up your street and I'd really appreciate another pair of eyes on it before I decide what to do with it. It's the Equestrian statue of Edward Horner in Mells (Raymond Asquith's brother in law). It's a bit different from my previous articles so I'd love to hear any thoughts you (or your stalkers) had on it. Is there anything you think I should do differently, anything that's there that shouldn't be or anything that looks like it's missing, does the structure seem sensible? Thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Hey, thanks for asking about this. I'd not seen that memorial before - it is fascinating! Couple of thoughts: There is a site called "The Returned collating information on returned grave markers. They might have more on the grave marker placed on the monument, though maybe all they have is what is here. You should really try and include a link to Horner's CWGC record, which gives his full name, the (moving) inscription on his grave ("SMALL TIME, BUT IN THAT SMALL MOST GREATLY LIVED THIS STAR OF ENGLAND"). The War Graves Photographic Project will have a photo of his grave. You have details of Edward Horner himself, but maybe you could try and include more about his parents? The mother has an ODNB entry you use as a reference - does the father also have an entry? Maybe see what other memorials they erected to his memory, to give some wider context. These aristocratic families often erected more than one such memorial. And maybe say more about the family reaction to the death - there are sometimes reports in the newspapers of memorial services. About the location of the statue, are there photos of it from early on (e.g. 1920s), and in the original location before it was moved? It was installed in 1920 - when was it commissioned? May look again later. Thanks again for asking, really nice bit of WWI memorial history. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot. That's some useful advice. I'll look at incorporating some of it into the article. I'm surprised you didn't know about it, but glad you found it interesting. I don't think there are any other memorials to him besides his grave but I'll look into it. Disappointingly, there's very little available on his father, which is odd because he was a KCVO. I might put together an article on Lady Frances though; there's enough to go from the ODNB. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I could not resist jumping in on this one, as I've been working on something for a while, so now we have your Sir John Francis Fortescue Horner and my Lady Frances Horner. Do feel free to hack away. Theramin (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The more the merrier! Glad I do have some others reading my talk page! :-) @HJ Mitchell: @Theramin: Have you both seen the picture here of Lady Horner with Lutyens. Might be trying to find out if that is available under an appropriate license, though it might not be. On slightly related topics, regarding the memorials erected in Amiens Cathedral and Cambrai Cathedral, I managed to take photos of most of the WWI memorials in Amiens Cathedral while there, including the Raymond Asquith one (see File:Memorial tablet to Raymond Asquith in Amiens Cathedral.JPG). If anyone does get to Cambrai Cathedral (or knows someone going there), do drop me a line as there are a number of memorials there that it would be good to get photos of if that is possible. Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theramin: Hey, saves me a job. I'll go write something else! I wonder if I can squeeze enough out of the sources for an FA on the Lancashire Fusiliers War Memorial. Btw, Bury's own war memorial needs an article.

I'm hoping to take a trip to Mells next weekend, not least to get some better photos of the war memorial. I was hoping to get to the Western Front this year but it didn't quite happen and the weather is too unreliable for outdoor photography now; with a little luck I might get there next spring. Wikimedia UK have nicely offered to put some money towards the trip, presumably because it will produce nice easily measurable results and they can complete the WMF's box-ticking exercises, but win-win. Amiens and Cambrai cathedrals are high on my hitlist, and I'm not leaving without seeing Etaples, Thiepval, and a few of Lutyens' other major works and a few by other architects (Vim Ridge, the Menin Gate, Tyne Cot, etc). I'm thinking of doing it in roughly a line from Etaples to Bruges (Bruges for beer, rather than war memorials!). What else is on your list? You'd be welcome to tag along if you wanted; I think the 'plan' (broadly construed!) is that Thryduulf is going to hire a car and drive me around for a few days and I'm going to pick up the bill. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorely tempted, but it might be difficult as there is a lot going on and I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia-related stuff at the moment (maybe email me further details?). I'd be very happy to offer advice, or point you to people who know even more about the area. There are any number of ways of touring that area, and once you've gone once you'll want to keep going back! On that last trip, I picked up a book giving detailed maps for cycling around cemeteries somewhere in that area. What else is on the list? Everything! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Carcharoth. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Carcharoth, hope all's well. Working together with you and Awickert on David A. Johnston was one of the highlights of my content work on Wikipedia, so I'd be happy to get your feedback on the Harry R. Truman article. I'm hoping to bring it to FAC, but I want to make sure it's comprehensive and well-written first. ceranthor 21:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll try and take a look at some point soon (can't promise it will be very soon). Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ceranthor: - "very soon" turned out to be now! :-) I have only one immediate suggestion (the article looks in very good shape), and that is to include something about his grave (or rather the memorial that was presumably erected by his family), as mentioned on the talk page, see here. Will need verifying with sources for location and date erected (it was called 'Harry R. Truman Memorial Park' in Castle Rock, but according to this was renamed, and the article corrected is a reliable source: [7], and a bit more on the history of that location here). A picture of that headstone would be nice. Maybe include the epitaph on there from his sister as well. And maybe try and find a free image of the lodge? Carcharoth (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All fantastic ideas. I'll get right on them as I've found myself with an hour free. ceranthor 17:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ceranthor: - last few tidbits I found: [8] (might have some more details) and [9]. The latter is an obituary of the sister (Geraldine Whiting) who died in 1987 and spent time with him at Mount Helen's. There is a video on YouTube of coverage of her laying a wreath at the mountain. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All neat stuff. I've been trying to find a free image (or Flickr attributable image) but have came up short for the memorial. ceranthor 17:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing two Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello! I've ordered copies of Munnings' autobiography and At Duty's Call (both were quite reasonable on Amazon Marketplace). Are there any others you think I should get hold of? Real life has unexpectedly heated up with a combination of work and lack of sleep and a very dear friend needing a lot of support so I haven't had as much time for Wikipedia as I'd hoped. I might get an opportunity to make some progress with the Horner FAC in the middle of the week and next weekend and hopefully normal service or something closely resembling it will be resumed in a couple of weeks. I wonder if Munnings' book will tell us how he knew Lutyens; it seems to be a recurring theme with Lutyens that there's little record of how he met his collaborators and contacts (a problem I found when doing he RND's memorial; I don't think there's even a record of how he and Fabian Ware first met, as I recall the first known letter between them suggested they were already familiar). He certainly knew how to make useful and influential friends! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: no problem. Life is about to get busy for me as well. I will keep an eye out and help and reply where I can. Lutyens did get around a lot! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

I tried to reply to your comment about how the radio buttons for maps are introduced, but it was removed by another editor without comment. So there you are, in case that is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.143 (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is helpful. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A classic undersourced article. He was in the RAMC in WWI, which is why I thought you might have better sources. I have added some of what I have been able to make out, on the Talk page: much more a medical man from a medical family than a politician. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Have commented there, though not much to add. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now got a book from the library, so can at least improve what's there. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Carcharoth - here are the images related to GFF Corbet. His CWGC headstone as noted is in the civilian cemetery at Brookwood in the private grave noted in the CWGC documents. Interestingly the CWGC grave reference has no bearing on location in the civilian cemetery and a separate search of Borough records is needed! Hope these are helpful. They are fairly large files as it's then easier to read the inscriptions when viewed at 100%. WyrdLight (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WyrdLight, many thanks for those! I am glad I didn't try and find the graves. Is it easy to consult the borough records? Some boroughs make access easy, others are harder to look up. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 
  Brookwood Cemetery UK - Corbet family plot - inscription for Frederick Hugh MacKenzie Corbet
• 
  Brookwood Cemetery UK - Corbet family plot with inscription for Reginald Vincent Campbell Corbet killed at Gallipoli April 1915 and George Frederick Francis Corbet wounded at Ypres 1916 & who also has CWGC headstone (see related image)
• 
  Brookwood Cemetery UK - Corbet family plot with inscription for John Hugh Corbet who died of wounds at Douai January 1918
• 
  Brookwood Cemetery UK - Corbet family plot with CWGC headstone of Second Lieutenant GFF Corbet interred with relatives by family request
• 
  Brookwood Cemetery UK - Corbet family plot - showing CWGC headstone for GFF Corbet at the foot of the Corbet family plot

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Carcharoth, apologies for disappearing off the face of the Earth for the last couple of months. Thanks very much for all you did helping the Horner FAC to its conclusion; you deserve a co-nominator credit for your hard work. I'm (sort of) back and looking at picking up the war memorials again though time is a little limited. I was looking at the RND memorial and see it passed its ACR (again partly thanks to you covering for me!). I was wondering if you felt all your comments had been addressed there and whether you got chance to do anything with the historic photos? There's probably room for another couple of photos in the article with careful placement. On re-reading, the only thing that leaps out at me is that we should probably mention that Rupert Brooke's mother was at the ceremony (seems like quite an important detail given how much coverage he and his work get in the article). All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum: I've added a mention of the mother. There are a couple of photos on that blog that could be useful if they could be cleaned up and we could establish their copyright status: the one of the memorial under construction with the scaffolding round it and the one of Churchill and Hamilton at the unveiling. I'd hope to take it to FAC at some point in the next couple of weeks; if you want a co-nom credit I'd be happy to oblige. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Harry. No need for co-noms for these. I'll try and help more later. Not much time at the moment, though good to see you back (it was indeed quite a while!). Carcharoth (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_6KjSjpLoe8kdpVr&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Middle-earth theology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I was wondering if you would take a look at a new tool I've created.

It's called SearchSuite.

I hope you find it useful. All feedback welcome.     — The Transhumanist    05:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of three Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please ((ping)) me. Thank you. -TT

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello from California! I found your name listed at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in London and I have a photo request I hope you find interesting. I'm currently in the process of revamping the article for Rock Bottom, the 1974 album by Robert Wyatt. Prior to the album's recording, Wyatt famously fell from a fourth-story window during a party and became paralyzed from the waist down. The building was Vale Court in Maida Vale, a mansion block at A5 and Hall Road, fairly close to the Maida Vale tube station. You can get a a good look at it on Google Maps.

I've searched up and down, but I can't find any free photos of Vale Court. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could take a photo of this building. The photo could also be used in the article on Lady June, who hosted the party at which Wyatt fell, and perhaps in Maida Vale as well. It doesn't have to be a photo of any particular part of the building—I can't find any information about which window Wyatt fell from, anyway—so any general-purpose photo of the building itself would be fine, as long as it conveys the height. It's also not a pressing matter, so by all means take the photo at your convenience. —BLZ · talk 22:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

Introduction

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...

With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

• ((PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly)) - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
• ((PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually)) - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.Reply[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiStripe for reviewing one Milhist article at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Carcharoth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

Hey Carcharoth. Just wanted to say hi and let you know I'm going to be a bit more active for a while, and to say thanks for all your help with the Tower Hill Memorial. I've been working on Leicester's Arch of Remembrance and I'm planning to nominate it for A-class. I'd appreciate any thoughts you had (here, on the talk page, or at the ACR) before I look at moving onto FAC. Cheers, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]